Let me tell you about Me.

[MineralMan]

I am a man. I do not speak for men. I speak for myself only. If someone speaks in generalities about men, that person is automatically incorrect.

That is all.

[bigtree]

1. I hear that

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks.

[uppityperson]

3. k&r

[Sissyk]

4. K&R

I am a woman. I do not speak for women. I speak for myself only. If someone speaks in generalities about women, that person is automatically incorrect.

That is all.

Thank, MM. I agree with you no matter the gender.

[MineralMan]

5. And thank you. We all can only speak for ourselves.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Seconding that, btw. =)

[quinnox]

6. Yep, Whenever someone says or implies they are speaking for a gender, or some other vast category

of people, nine times out of ten they are bullshitting.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. Yes, indeed. nt

[riqster]

8. How dare you speak for you?!?!?!?

It is for others to define you as we wish!
We have tar, feathers, and very broad brushes with which to do so!

[Katashi_itto]

10. I speak for all Waffles.

[riqster]

11. Belgian or American?

[Katashi_itto]

19. Only Belgian.

[Treant]

24. I speak for the trees.

/Dr. Seuss

[Katashi_itto]

32. :)

[Martin Eden]

36. Do you stand firm behind your assertions ...

... or do you waffle?

[Katashi_itto]

46. WAFFLE!

[tridim]

9. Do you ever speak for Mineral Men?

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Mineral Man. Mineral Man. Saying the things a mineral can...

What's he like? It's not important.
Mineral Man.

Is he a rock or is he an ore?
When he's in the topic does he get read?
Or does the topic just sink instead?
Mineral Man.

[tridim]

13. +1

[berni_mccoy]

15. For some reason, the theme music to the old animated Spider Man came to mind

[Silent3]

21. And don't get me started on mistrilateralism! n/t

[Android3.14]

31. They might be giants

I get it. Woo-hoo!

[MineralMan]

39. I wouldn't dare. I'm the only

MineralMan I know.

[tclambert]

16. On behalf of all the sentient beings in the universe, I say . . .

I am NOT a megalomaniac.

[Kablooie]

17. Yeah. All men say that.

[secondvariety]

18. I thought

you were going to tell us about Maine.

[closeupready]

20. Is everything always about you?

why did you need to start a thread about you.

[treestar]

27. It makes a point

In a more interesting way than stating it in third person.

[randys1]

28. Men, white ones especially, older ones primarily, are scared and a little whiny lately

[closeupready]

29. +100.

[Sissyk]

49. That's funny!

I find that a majority of the whining is other people whining about men whining. Funny shit there, isn't it?

I'm a white woman. I firmly believe misogyny exist. I firmly believe racism exist. I firmly and strongly agree they are a problem that exist in the US. I, however, do not try to put down 1/2 the population of the world.

I do quite a bit of reading on this site and I have determined that it is mostly trolls that try to divide the entire population of the planet. It is mostly trolls that try to divide the Democratic Party on a democratic website (I'm not talking disagreement in policy either). Or, whether racism and misogyny exist. I'd say 99% of democrats are on board with that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. I actually don't see much whining at all.

I see a lot more grumpiness and sniping, but little I would characterize as whining.

And I don't think anything is binary as many people seem to want to make it. The world is a nuanced place.

Racism and misogyny exist, and people (not just men) reinforce such by their actions and words, usually in reverse proportion to the amount of exposure they've had to rational (rather than emotional) discourse about the subjects. If we're going to make serious inroads against either, we've got to be a lot more upfront in addressing both in an ongoing fashion in classrooms, not ignoring them until we end up fighting against them as adults.

So I don't think the anger being thrown in either direction is helpful, and distracts from the actual goals of getting people to open their eyes to injustice and inequality they've been culturally shaped to ignore, and to take up the fight for equality in all forms.

[Sissyk]

57. I agree with you except for one thing that stands out.

Parents need to start earlier than the classrooms. Parents need to raise their children in households without them seeing any of the 'isms. That includes homophobia along with racism, sexism, and classism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. +1. nt

[randys1]

54. Just plain silliness, but enjoy your time here...

[Sissyk]

55. lol!

Overall, I have been enjoying my time here for a couple of years now.

[randys1]

56. Oh good, then I havent disrupted that, nice to know

[MineralMan]

40. You may have missed the thread with the title,

Let me tell you about Men. I just left off the "n"

[DavidDvorkin]

22. Exactly.

[whatchamacallit]

23. I just rec'd an MM post for the 1st time!

[MineralMan]

41. Hey, thanks!

[Silent3]

25. Hey, stop minimizing and denying misogyny!

Because we all know that's the only possible interpretation and purpose of an OP like yours, you MRA type, you!

[Treant]

26. Thank you

The generalities about "men" being thrown around are sickening. As if half the human species could be pigeonholed into some very nasty little boxes.

If women don't like misogyny, maybe they shouldn't engage in misandry.

If they persist, they should probably get used to me patting them on the head and telling them they're "cute little girls." Somehow they never get the irony.

[Sissyk]

52. Here is part of the problem.

Misogyny exist and no man or woman should like it, and it is prevalent.

Misandry exist and no man or woman should like it, but it is not prevalent.

If someone tries to pat me on the head (not directed at you, Treant), they might not get their hand back. Well, they might; but it could be detached.

You telling me I'm a cute little girl would just get a laugh from me. And, I wouldn't be laughing with you. Somehow, I don't think you would get the irony of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. I have a slightly different take ...

I am a man. I speak for only myself. When someone speaks in generalities about men I do not take it personally, especially when I don't believe it was directed to, or applies to, me.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. And Here We Agree Tremendously

Which is exactly what i was saying in the other thread.

If it isn't actually about me personally, i don't care. There is no such thing as mysandry that affect me. It's just a word.

We, obviously, differ on the definition, but either way, it's not personal to me. It means nothing.

It's just a word.

And, notice i did this without questioning your academic credentials.

Funny how civility only works one way, even when folks agree.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Well ...

we actually do not agree ... You're saying the general statement doesn't matter because it doesn't apply to you; I'm saying I don't personalize the general statement, though it absolutely matters. Big difference.

It's NOT just a word ... words matter.

And, notice i did this without questioning your academic credentials.

I wasn't questioning your academic credentials; rather, I was attempting to place the concept of evolving terms in a context that an academic should recognize/relate to.

[Android3.14]

33. I'm with you,MMan

Nicely done.
For those who think MineralMan's post is pointing to you, (guess what?) it probably is.

[Helen Borg]

34. I don't know who or what I am.

I just happen to exist and I'm aware of it. Everything else makes little sense to me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. You spoke in generalities about people. Does that make you automatically incorrect?

The problem is not in making generalizations or speaking in generalities.

The problem is forgetting to indicate the limits of the generalization. It is important to use qualifier phrases, such as "some men", "many people", "a majority of women", etc. Generalities and generalizations are useful but it helps people maintain perspective and calmness if their boundaries are acknowledged.

The problem arises from binary thinking. Too many people think and speak and write in all-or-nothing mode. So we get statements like "All men want to rape" or "nobody wants rape" (though the latter is so obviously false that it is usually qualified). Note that I didn't write "People think". I qualified the phrase.

If someone speaks in generalities about men, that person is automatically incorrect.

That was a generalization. Without limits indicated, the "if someone speaks" has to be interpreted as "when anyone speaks".

Think like a scientist or engineer and not a US Congress critter (99% lawyers). Scientists and engineers are almost always hedging their statements and defining the limits or mentioning exceptions.

And readers, don't overlook the qualifiers. Avoid applying binary thinking when interpreting properly limited statements.

[JDPriestly]

37. Same for women.

[Old Codger]

38. Agreed also

To add this as to generalities, they are always wrong (including this one)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. What is your opinion on abortion?

[MineralMan]

48. It should be readily available and is the

decision of the woman, entirely.

[Throd]

45. Often, when I speak for myself, I still have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the men...

Sounds stupid when Cliven Bundy says it. Sounds stupid when anybody else says it.

We're liberals. We're progressives.

We're supposed to be smarter than the other guys. But sometimes we're not.

Especially on this board.

[cali]

50. true enough, but if someone speaks of the Men's Rights Movement

there are generalizations that are apt both regarding the MRA itself and those folks drawn to it.

[MineralMan]

51. Yes. That's a qualifier.

My post was in response to another OP, with the title "Let me tell you about Men."